Talk:Jarrah White

	This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

More needed

While I think that White warrants an article, I have reservations about the current version. It was created by something that looks like a drive-by account, it is light on sources and it takes things more personally than necessary. I've tried to clean it up a bit, but it needs more work.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by article deleted 20/06/2014

I am the Jarrah White mentioned in this totally bogus and incorrect article. Whoever wrote this obviously has some axe to grind. I have deleted the erroneous and libelous statements therein. Below is my thorough rebuttal.

First of all: I do not "swiftly block users" for pointing out "errors". The user in question was blocked for calling Ralph Rene "deliberately deceptive" (and I have email records to prove it). I have put up with persistent Ralph Rene trolling (not to mention attempts to demonize he and I) for nearly seven years now, and subsequently have not had one day to mourn him. Not one day. I will not put up with this trolling anymore. I also have limited tolerance for people calling me "deliberately deceptive". I have no interest nor need to be deceptive to my audience, and anyone who says otherwise I consider a troll/oxygen-thief who is not worth my time or attention. Additionally, under the new Google+ System, anyone can flag a comment for spam. Upon which, it is removed from public view and placed in a bin that the user who uploaded the original video must filter through. I have seen messages from both sides of the debate appear in these bins. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to filter through these hundreds of flagged messages.

Secondly: I shouldn't have to produce "evidence to back up" that I am doing my BSc. Why would I advertise where I study when on multiple separate ocassions certain opponents have dug up my personal dox, sent me unsolicited mail and even posted said dox online? You will get your evidence when I post the graduation videos on Youtube.

Third: the section on my site regarding Hams and MSFN is in response to individuals who specifically claim that Russia and Hams "tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back" (I know for a fact Killian made such a claim, and I recall Plait claiming it somewhere) and erroneously claim that the MSFN stations were independent of NASA despite the fact that they were either NASA owned or NASA contracted.

Fourth: Van Allen's findings that I referred to were published in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American and backed by findings on the Explorer and Pioneer spacecrafts. His subsequent retraction and statement that lethal radiation is "nonsense" is neither substantiated nor backed by his own data. A friend posted scans of the article in question on his Photobucket, I offer these so everyone can evaluate the science for themselves: http://s923.photobucket.com/user/ax2cz/media/VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195902.jpg.html?sort=3&o=26

Fifth: Similarly, the ESO press release that I linked to specifically discusses the resolving capabilities of the VLTI, stating that it can resolve details as small as 1milliarcsecond. .In addition to likening it to resolving he headlights of a car on the moon, they have recently likened it to being able to resolve a sesame seed on the ISS This is the same width to distance ratio as the space between a car's headlights on the moon (2mm/380km = 2000mm/380,000km), so if it can see a seed on the ISS it should be able to see a car on the moon. And the VLT has been used to take pictures of the moon, unfortunately ESO has not used it to resolve objects that small. I'm not sure what kind of scientific authority whoever wrote this article purports to be, but optical telescopes were covered in my first year of astrophysics. I think I know what is required to see hardware on the moon.

Furthermore, this article completely ignores my various non conspiracy theory work. Like my coverage of SpaceX's progress: my educated guesses for their Mars strategy turned out to be near identical to what MarsOne was proposing. Or my Sci-Fi in the Sky series, which scientifically critiqued errors in science fiction movies. I am by all means a man of science who demands progress and advancement of space exploration. Falsified space missions and attempts to keep those lies alive will only hinder that goal. I do not care that I am in, at best, a scientific minority regarding my position on Apollo.

Wikipedia had some staff who were decent enough to delete a page that was created to attack me a few years ago. I have never even heard of RationalWiki before, but one would think it would have had moderators able to take the same action against attack pages like this. ^{— Unsigned, by: 165.228.122.221 / talk / contribs} 12:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Before anyone, like the BoN which just removed large sections of the article, starts claiming that Jarah has "refuted" the criticism in the article, please read on:

Not able to quote correctly, surprise surprise for a moon hoaxer... Jarrah claims that "In addition to likening it to resolving he headlights of a car on the moon, they have recently likened it to being able to resolve a sesame seed on the ISS." Unfortunately, that's not what ESO actually wrote in their faq which really stated that "This is equivalent to distinguishing two points separated by the size of a sesame seed on the International Space Station as seen from the ground." Note that this ignores the (intermittently deleted) issue that the RW article raised, namely that this relates to "point sources of light against a dark background (e.g., a star), and completely useless for imaging the lunar surface. He is comparing apples, (in daytime), to flashlights, (at night)."

Similarly, Jarrah is sloppy when he claims that Van Allen's "subsequent retraction and statement that lethal radiation is "nonsense" is neither substantiated nor backed by his own data," because it ignores the facts that:

1. Everyone but dedicated moon hoaxers actually agree that astronauts did survive the Van Allen belts.
2. Van Allen didn't say that "lethal radiation is "nonsense"", but that the claims that astronauts couldn't possible have survived it is nonsense.
3. It ignores that Van Allen actually already suggested how to mitigate the radiation problem in that very 1959 article, namely through shielding and minimising of exposure by choosing your trajectory, and he actually helped the Apollo Program with the latter approach.

As for why RW ignores Jarrah's "various non conspiracy theory work" that's because it falls outside RW's mission — just as RW's article on Eric Hobsbawm focuses on his role as a Stalin apologist, not his worthwhile contributions to history. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the article

I think it is worthwhile adding to this article, and explaining Jarrah's errors in more detail. As it stands, the article does appear to be an attack article. Seekers of the real truth should be made aware of the details and obfuscation used by White. ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.64.20.178 / talk / contribs} 15:44, 26 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Watching This Page

No one is blanking out 3/4ths of the damn page without explaining WHY that needs to happen here on the talk page. I will immediately revert any such removals until this dicussed in detail. Got that clear, BoN? --Castaigne (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Addition: I don't see that the shit which is being removed needs to be removed, since they are factual statements and refutations, and NOT hit pieces. --Castaigne (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Castaigne, I decided to reword the block and thread deletion claim as the BoN seemed to be correct about the YT block/delete thing (we could reinstate the stuff about block and the YT link, but not the claim about a delete of the thread). Instead, I simply cited Jarrah's hostile stance here on the talk page where he admitted to blocking those criticising René's BS. I also added the dubious nature of Jarrah's reference to the proposed future Space Adventures moon flights. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Noted. --Castaigne (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

HEY, BON ASSHOLE, READ YOUR FUCKING TALK PAGE AND YOU'LL FIGURE OUT WHY I'VE REVERTED YOU. PAY. ATTENTION. --Castaigne (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Where does White admit to "blocking those criticising René's BS"? The comment he posted here says the user was blocked for calling René "deliberately deceptive." Also, White covered the problems with what Space Adventures are proposing in one of his recent updates, even cited the exact same references as you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrHIa6LTcWo It is fair to say that he abandoned Space Adventures long ago in favor of SpaceX.

BoN? What's that stand for?

As you wish, here's a detailed discussion. The site stated that "When such errors are pointed out, for example in YouTube comments, White swiftly blocks users who point them out, and deletes their posts." and cites an AboveTopSecret thread posted by an individual called Rob48 as the reference.<ref>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1008824/pg1</ref> But if you scroll further down the page, this Rob48 withdraws his statement that White "deleted the entire thread." His retraction reads, and I quote: "Edit: one small correction (unlike Jarrah, I can do corrections) - he has not "deleted the entire thread", it's just that I couldn't read it because he has blocked me. When I logged out of YouTube, I saw it was still there (the one starting "For anyone wondering...")". Clearly, whoever posted the statement that White deletes the messages obviously didn't read the whole thread. Had he/she done so, he/she would not have posted it because the accusation is baseless.

White himself maintains that he only blocks people for calling him "deliberately deceptive", or in this case calling Rene "deliberately deceptive". I've seen Apollo defenders block moon hoaxers too, the Astrobrant2 mentioned in the original section for example has repeatedly blocked users for not abiding by his "rules". I'm sure all Youtubers have their own rules when it comes to people posting on their videos.

As for the business activities section, the section reads: "White accepts donations via his Moonfaker website[3]. He also runs a "Paypal fundraise"[sic] entitled Fly Jarrah to the Moon[4], in which he "encourages propagandists and everyone who believes in Apollo to raise $500,000 to pay for himself and an accompanying believer to take this proposed tourist flight". What Mr. White doesn't tell us on that page is that the $500,000 price tag was a projection for decades into the future. In his first twenty-one "Fly Jarrah White to the Moon" YouTube videos, the price tag he was trying to meet was $200,000,000, which was later inflated to $300,000,000. (That's million, not thousand.) After twenty-two video "updates," covering a period of over three years, he had raised less than $500 for what he ordains as "my noble cause". He asserts that he firmly believes he will be able to raise the money. At that rate it will take him over 3000 years to meet just the projected half-million dollar fare.

YouTube Apollo defender, Astrobrant2, challenged White concerning his belief that the Van Allen belts would kill anyone travelling to the moon. Jarrah bravely stated that he would gladly sacrifice his life for the truth. It may be safe to assume that he will die right here on earth without ever having to show his cards on that claim."

Apart from the obvious cheap shots, this section is clearly in error. The $500,000 price tag was SpaceX's prediction for "10 or 15 years" after 2012 when the statement was made [1], not "decades into the future", decades into the future would imply more at least 20 or 30 years. While White does not mention this was a projection on his site, he DOES state that it was a projection in his "SpaceX - Man on Mars for only $500,000" video.[2] That video discusses and contains links to a BBC article covering Elon Musks proposal to send people to Mars for $500,000 within at least ten years after 2012. Given that White had specified it in his video (not to mention posted a link to that video in his FAQ page), this section on RW was unsubstantiated. So it should be trimmed.

And while his raising of the money has been slow, I also don't think it's fair to say that it will take him 3,000 years to raise the money. Groups like the Solar Roadways managed to raise over $2,000,000 for their pipe dream, so I think White raising $500,000 within his lifetime is conceivable. He probably just needs better advertising to speed up the process.

Now in regard to phrases like "He also claims to be studying for a BSc in astrophysics for many, many, years." Is that mature writing? I think not. I'd lose the "for many, many, years".

Now for the criticisms of the FAQ page. First of all, with regard to telecommunications. White is obviously responding to individuals who claimed that Apollo was tracked by independent parties all the way to the moon and back. As White argued in the Talk section, certain Apollo defenders have erroneously claimed this. In fact, some of his videos seem to chronicle his ongoing back and forth along these lines. [3] [4]. In these examples he specifically refutes shanedk's claim that amateur radio astronomers tracked Apollo "all the way to the moon" and gets into a heated debate with him [5][6], it's actually quite entertaining seeing the two shouting at each other. He also argues that DSN and MSFN cannot be "independent" as some assert because they were either contracted by NASA or operated by NASA. Given this proper context of what White is responding to on his site, the criticism on this page regarding tracking Apollo is obviously a strawman argument.

Regarding radiation. Again, the findings by James Van Allen that White refers to are his articles published in the 1959 Scientific American and 1961 Space World, not his reply to the Fox special made 40 years later. In fact, White seems to have updated his FAQ to include pdfs of both articles. Ignoring these articles in your criticism and instead referring readings to a much later statement is both an omission and a misrepresentation of White's position. And contrary to SkepticWombat's reply, the 1959 article does not "suggest how to mitigate" the radiation by "choosing your trajectory". On the final page, the trajectory he opts for is "taking off through the radiation free zone over the poles", which means launching from the polar regions. In the 1961 article he further specifies that the trajectory for avoiding the outer belt to minimize exposure calls for launching through what he calls "cones of escape" over the north and south geomagnetic poles.[7] Apollo's trajectory was no where near those cones of escape.

Finally, the resolving capabilities of VLT. All that needs to be said is that it is not true that the VLT is useless for imagining the lunar surface. They have used it to take photos of the Sea of Tranquility [8] and White's FAQ page also contains a Telegraph article in which Dr. Richard West announces that they will use four of the telescopes working together in VLTI mode to try and resolve a lunar module.[9]. Why would West propose this if VLTI was useless to look at the lunar surface? This reference is omitted completely by RW, making whoever wrote this section appear very dishonest. White also does make an interesting point that I would like to hear from whoever wrote this section: what qualifications or training in optical astronomy does the RW writer have?

I hope this answers your questions. If this site is dedicated to rational thinking, then to practice what we preach we should remove the unsubstantiated accusations, cheapshots, and strawman arguments from this page.

Hmmmm. My references don't seem to work. I don't know how to fix that.^{— Unsigned, by: 101.190.64.5 / talk / contribs 05:02, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)}

I suggest a trip to Help:Contents. And please avoid using references on Talk pages.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay let's break this up into a section for each claim shall we? (As for the meaning of BoN, see: RationalWiki:BoN) ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocking & thread deletion

“”As you wish, here's a detailed discussion. The site stated that "When such errors are pointed out, for example in YouTube comments, White swiftly blocks users who point them out, and deletes their posts." and cites an AboveTopSecret thread posted by an individual called Rob48 as the reference. [10] But if you scroll further down the page, this Rob48 withdraws his statement that White "deleted the entire thread." His retraction reads, and I quote: "Edit: one small correction (unlike Jarrah, I can do corrections) - he has not "deleted the entire thread", it's just that I couldn't read it because he has blocked me. When I logged out of YouTube, I saw it was still there (the one starting "For anyone wondering...")". Clearly, whoever posted the statement that White deletes the messages obviously didn't read the whole thread. Had he/she done so, he/she would not have posted it because the accusation is baseless. White himself maintains that he only blocks people for calling him "deliberately deceptive", or in this case calling Rene "deliberately deceptive". I've seen Apollo defenders block moon hoaxers too, the Astrobrant2 mentioned in the original section for example has repeatedly blocked users for not abiding by his "rules". I'm sure all Youtubers have their own rules when it comes to people posting on their videos.

—101.190.64.5

Answer:

1. White's definition of "deliberately deceptive" is not something I'd take at face value any day.
2. The only thing that retraction actually retracts is the claim that White "deleted the entire thread", not the part about blocking. This is why I changed the wording to remove the former claim (only).
3. We now have not only the link (which could be reinstated as a source for blocking), but also White's free admission to blocking people who don't think much about René.

In sum: Why should we remove the entire section when the only part that is clearly wrong is the allegation of White deleting the thread? This looks like whitewashing (no pun intended) to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN response:

1. . Definitions do not enter into it. Look at the quotation marks, White only blocks people who specifically call him “deceptive” or “deliberately deceptive”. I’ve seen many Apollo defenders posting on his videos who, as you put it, don’t think much about Rene or White for that matter. But they all seem to be still able to post on his videos because they have not yet used the D-word.
2. . You have removed accusation that he “deletes posts”, but you have not yet removed the accusation that people are blocked for “pointing out errors”. There are others posting in the comments of White's videos posting criticisms similar to what Rob48 wrote, but they hold back on calling White “deceptive” and have not been blocked.
3. . I have seen White’s comment here. Blocking someone for calling Rene “deliberately deceptive” is quite different from blocking someone for “pointing out errors”. Therefore, citing White’s comment here as an admission that he blocks people for “pointing out errors” is quote mining. Frankly, regardless of ideology, I doubt anyone would appreciate someone posting offensive insults about their deceased friends. White has produced quite a few videos on how his opponents trolled Ralph Rene after he died, so I think his limited tolerance for people calling his friend “deliberately deceptive” is understandable.

In Sum: There are TWO things wrong with the section, not just one. White did not delete comments, and White maintains that the user was blocked for calling Rene “deliberately deceptive”. What evidence do you have that the user was blocked for “pointing out errors”? And how do you reconcile this accusation when other Apollo defenders who post similar comments but have not called White or Rene deceptive are still active in the comments of his videos?

Signed - 101.190.64.5 / talk

The BoN simply takes Jarrah's claim at face value. Given that Jarrah is a moon hoaxer, I'd be extremely careful about his definition of what counts as "deliberately deceptive" (i.e. whether it covers pointing out that René's claims are BS). The blocking claim wasn't removed because the link still backed it up, and so did Jarrah. The level of trust that our BoN has in Jarrah is heart-warming - and rather naive. As we can see in the other cases, however, the heart gets a little colder when, instead of a rewrite, our BoN just decides to delete everything. That's effectively whitewashing. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fly Jarrah to the Moon

“”As for the business activities section, the section reads: "White accepts donations via his Moonfaker website[3]. He also runs a "Paypal fundraise"[sic] entitled Fly Jarrah to the Moon[4], in which he "encourages propagandists and everyone who believes in Apollo to raise $500,000 to pay for himself and an accompanying believer to take this proposed tourist flight". What Mr. White doesn't tell us on that page is that the $500,000 price tag was a projection for decades into the future. In his first twenty-one "Fly Jarrah White to the Moon" YouTube videos, the price tag he was trying to meet was $200,000,000, which was later inflated to $300,000,000. (That's million, not thousand.) After twenty-two video "updates," covering a period of over three years, he had raised less than $500 for what he ordains as "my noble cause". He asserts that he firmly believes he will be able to raise the money. At that rate it will take him over 3000 years to meet just the projected half-million dollar fare. YouTube Apollo defender, Astrobrant2, challenged White concerning his belief that the Van Allen belts would kill anyone travelling to the moon. Jarrah bravely stated that he would gladly sacrifice his life for the truth. It may be safe to assume that he will die right here on earth without ever having to show his cards on that claim." Apart from the obvious cheap shots, this section is clearly in error. The $500,000 price tag was SpaceX's prediction for "10 or 15 years" after 2012 when the statement was made [1], not "decades into the future", decades into the future would imply more at least 20 or 30 years. While White does not mention this was a projection on his site, he DOES state that it was a projection in his "SpaceX - Man on Mars for only $500,000" video.[2] That video discusses and contains links to a BBC article covering Elon Musks proposal to send people to Mars for $500,000 within at least ten years after 2012. Given that White had specified it in his video (not to mention posted a link to that video in his FAQ page), this section on RW was unsubstantiated. So it should be trimmed. And while his raising of the money has been slow, I also don't think it's fair to say that it will take him 3,000 years to raise the money. Groups like the Solar Roadways managed to raise over $2,000,000 for their pipe dream, so I think White raising $500,000 within his lifetime is conceivable. He probably just needs better advertising to speed up the process.

—101.190.64.5

Answer:

1. A minor error ("12-15 years" i.e. a decade and a half, rather than "decades into the future") hardly merits deleting the entire section.
2. There are hardly solid grounds to accept that the 12-15 years is an accurate guesstimate. This is a typical time frame for stuff that's not actually ready, but claimed to be just over the horizon (kind of like fusion woo).
3. The projection of 3,000 years is based on Jarrah's actual fund raising abilities so far, using other peoples'/groups' fund raising abilities is irrelevant to a discussion of Jarrah. Sure, it's "conceivable" that Jarrah could raise "$500,000 within his lifetime" (I've just heard of someone in my city winning $40 million), but is it plausible? Current experience says no.

In sum: We again see at most a minor error, and our BoN deletes everything - this effectively constitutes whitewashing. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN response:

1. It is not just a minor error we are talking about here. The RW article claims that “What Mr. White doesn't tell us on that page is that the $500,000 price tag was a projection for decades into the future”, when in fact White DOES tell us this right at the beginning of his first video on SpaceX’s Mars shot. Quoting White: "On March 20, 2012, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk told the BBC that in as little as 10 or 15 years from [2012], his company will offer tourists a trip aboard his Dragon spacecraft all the way to the surface of Mars and back again to Earth for only $500,000 per seat. That's 300 times less than what Space Adventures is asking for a lunar fly-by." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSjg9e1bI0
2. That is a discussion for another RW entry.
3. Citing other people’s successful fund raising project is not irrelevant. If they can do it, so can White. If it is conceivable, then his project does not warrant the cheap shots like "it'll take 3,000 years" or "he'll die on Earth without having to show his cards."

Sum: It is not a minor error. The accusation was that White neglected to tell readers that the $500,000 price tag was a projection for the future, despite the fact that he DID mention this in his first main video on SpaceX's Mars mission, not to mention his subsequent follow up videos. Therefore, it is not whitewashing, it is trimming an obvious error.

Signed - 101.190.64.5 / talk

Our BoN ignores that the reference is to Jarrah's webpage, not the video where Jarrah adds the "small print". Our BoN is apparently unable to distinguish between "possible" and "plausible". RW's projection is based on Jarrah's actual ability to raise funds so far, so our BoN's idle speculations about what other fund raisers have managed is a red herring.

The BoN's defence suggests at most a slight rewrite, but instead everything is just deleted. Not cool. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tracking Apollo

“”Now for the criticisms of the FAQ page. First of all, with regard to telecommunications. White is obviously responding to individuals who claimed that Apollo was tracked by independent parties all the way to the moon and back. As White argued in the Talk section, certain Apollo defenders have erroneously claimed this. In fact, some of his videos seem to chronicle his ongoing back and forth along these lines.[Note: YT clips omitted, see org. post] In these examples he specifically refutes shanedk's claim that amateur radio astronomers tracked Apollo "all the way to the moon" and gets into a heated debate with him,[Note: YT clips omitted, see org. post] it's actually quite entertaining seeing the two shouting at each other. He also argues that DSN and MSFN cannot be "independent" as some assert because they were either contracted by NASA or operated by NASA. Given this proper context of what White is responding to on his site, the criticism on this page regarding tracking Apollo is obviously a strawman argument.

—101.190.64.5

Answer:

1. So, again we should delete everything because Jarrah claims it's unfair?
2. What has the independence of NASA to do with anything? Oh yes, if we can't be sure they're absolutely independent, they're part of the conspiracy, right?
3. What the RW article actually says is that asking for such independent tracking is unrealistic. Why is this "obviously a strawman argument"?

In sum: Why does these aspects merit a complete deletion, rather than a rewrite? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN response

1. It should be deleted because the whole premise of the criticism is clearly based on a misrepresentation of what White said. Which is that contrary to what certain Apollo defenders have claimed, independents like amateur radio enthusiasts and Jodrell Bank do not claim to have tracked Apollo “all the way to the moon and back”
2. Read the header of the Question in the FAQ page: “Weren’t there independent particles tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back?” Clearly, it has to do with EVERYTHING because that’s what White was discussing and responding to in his FAQ page.
3. The “unrealistic tracking” as you put it, was so-called evidence cited by certain Apollo defenders. Look at his videos I linked to in my previous message, White has directly replied to Apollo defenders making this claim and then he goes on to show that this claim is erroneous. Because the independent parties DO NOT make claim to have tracked it “all the way to the moon and back”, they only claim to have tracked it when it was on or near the moon. Attacking White over the “all the way to the moon and back” claim as though it originated with him is not a criticism of his argument, it is a misrepresentation of his argument.

Sum: See my reply to 1. No amount of rewriting this argument will help, because its overall premise is flawed. All White did was refute the claim that parties independent of NASA were able to track Apollo “all the way to the moon and back”. When one considers the context of what these independent trackers have stated, White’s refutation of this “all the way to the moon and back” claim is correct.

Signed - 101.190.64.5 / talk

Nothing in what the BoN addresses undercuts the existing RW text core contention: That it's silly to demand independent tracking all the way. Accepting Jarrah's claim that if it was done by anyone connected to NASA is pandering to his conspiracy nonsense.

Also, as in the other cases, this merits at most a rewrite, yet the BoN just wades in and blanks the entire section. There's a word for that, it's called whitewashing. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Van Allen

“”Regarding radiation. Again, the findings by James Van Allen that White refers to are his articles published in the 1959 Scientific American and 1961 Space World, not his reply to the Fox special made 40 years later. In fact, White seems to have updated his FAQ to include pdfs of both articles. Ignoring these articles in your criticism and instead referring readings to a much later statement is both an omission and a misrepresentation of White's position. And contrary to SkepticWombat's reply, the 1959 article does not "suggest how to mitigate" the radiation by "choosing your trajectory". On the final page, the trajectory he opts for is "taking off through the radiation free zone over the poles", which means launching from the polar regions. In the 1961 article he further specifies that the trajectory for avoiding the outer belt to minimize exposure calls for launching through what he calls "cones of escape" over the north and south geomagnetic poles.[11] Apollo's trajectory was no where near those cones of escape.

—101.190.64.5

Answer:

1. See my earlier response to Jarrah.
2. Yes, the article does say that shielding and choosing a trajectory will lessen the impact of radiation. It's right there at the end of the article and choosing the pole route was simply mentioned as the way to completely avoid the belts. As this was impracticable, in practice the trajectory was calculated to lessen, not completely avoid, the belt. This is what's pointed out in my second link.

In sum: Again we see minor niggling by Jarrah, taken at face value by our BoN who then deleted the entire section, effectively whitewashing Jarrah's BS. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN response

1. I have. You have not addressed his criticism. White argued that Van Allen originally stated that manned flights into the radiation belt would be deadly to astronauts, his FAQ page specifically cites these articles by Van Allen as references. In fact, the reference numbers even appear next to the quote used by RW. But rather than refer to the Van Allen articles White is talking about, RW bluntly states it is “categorically untrue” and quotes Van Allen’s reply to the Fox show, as though this reply was the Van Allen reference White was referring to!
2. First, shielding would work, but in both articles Van Allen makes statements like “unless some practical way can be found to shield space travellers” or “owing to the great penetrability of the high energy protons therein, effective shielding is beyond engineering feasibility” implying that he doubted sufficient shielding could be supplied. Second, the only mention of “choosing a trajectory” that I can find at the end of the article is his mention of launching from the poles. Third, your second link is not written by Van Allen. If you are aware of a paper by Van Allen in which he specifically discusses Apollo’s trajectory, by all means share it with us.

Sum: What RW could have said was something along the lines of “It’s true that Van Allen originally stated this, but later withdrew his claim” and then go on to quote the reply to Fox. This would have made your point at least while keeping White’s argument in context. But instead, you avoid mentioning these early articles and bluntly call White’s paraphrasing of said articles “categorically untrue”. This is a strawman.

Signed - 101.190.64.5 / talk

Our BoN's suggestion for hedging is silly - given that Jarrah had easy access to Van Allen's comments. There's no reason why any thinking person would be poring over a 1959 article and then conclude that it must mean that astronauts couldn't have landed on the moon. That Van Allen wrote this in a popular science magazine in 1959 is simply irrelevant since it blithely ignores subsequent developments.

Even worse, and suggesting bad faith whitewashing, is that rather than doing a revision of the phrasing (s)he suggests, our BoN simply deletes the entire section. So no, this won't wash. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

VLT/VLTI

“”Finally, the resolving capabilities of VLT. All that needs to be said is that it is not true that the VLT is useless for imagining the lunar surface. They have used it to take photos of the Sea of Tranquility [12] and White's FAQ page also contains a Telegraph article in which Dr. Richard West announces that they will use four of the telescopes working together in VLTI mode to try and resolve a lunar module.[13]. Why would West propose this if VLTI was useless to look at the lunar surface? This reference is omitted completely by RW, making whoever wrote this section appear very dishonest. White also does make an interesting point that I would like to hear from whoever wrote this section: what qualifications or training in optical astronomy does the RW writer have?

—101.190.64.5

Answer:

1. See my earlier response to Jarrah.
2. Our BoN, like Jarrah, doesn't distinguish between VLT and VLTI, which is at the heart of the response to Jarrah in the RW article.
3. Jarrah asks for qualifications - cool, what are his (and why should we accept his moon hoaxing)?

In sum: Our BoN is now beginning to show overt moon hoaxing tendencies by not only accepting Jarrah's BS, but also repeating standard conspiracy theorist M.O. ("Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?"/"You are being dishonest" blablabla). Is there any reason presented for even a rewrite, let alona a deletion of the entire section? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN response

1. I have. I see nothing wrong with his paraphrasing of what ESO wrote on their site. In their FAQ page they wrote that it is equivalent to seeing two points separated by the space the size of a sesame seed, in the article White referenced on his site they state that it is equivalent to seeing a car’s headlights on the moon. White’s argument is that the equivalent resolution is the same when you do the calculations. There is also this Science Daily article with an even more specific analogy: “This will enable the VLTI to operate with enormous flexibility and, in particular, to obtain extremely detailed (sharp) images of celestial objects - ultimately with a resolution that corresponds to detecting an astronaut on the Moon.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050326093330.htm So what are the complaints here?
2. So your argument is that White did not use the clarifying term of VLTI? That’s easily debunked. Here is his Fly Jarrah To The Moon update from August 2013, nearly a year before this entry was created. Quoting White at about 5:00: "Well in a press release, the European Southern Observatory announced that working in interferometry mode, the VLT had an angular resolution of 1 milliarcsecond" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKaTfLmP2QE His use of the phrase "working in interferometry mode" makes it obvious that he is talking about the VLTI. The fact that he wrote VLT instead of VLTI on his site is moot. When taking into consideration what he said in his video, it is clear that he is talking about VLTI. This makes this section on RW yet another strawman, further supporting the need to trim it.
3. He said “optical telescopes were covered in my first year of astrophysics. I think I know what is required to see hardware on the moon.” He also provided that Telegraph article as a reference, in which Dr. West proposed using VLTI to look at the moon to try and find the Lunar Module: "Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-on-Moon.html This contradicts RW’s claim that VLTI is useless for looking at the moon. Not including the continuation of White’s words in which he goes on to cite the article is neither honest nor an accurate representation of his position.

Sum: Based on these articles, one of which even quotes an ESO astronomer as saying they will use VLTI to look at the landing sites, I don’t see anything wrong with White’s conviction that VLTI can see hardware on the lunar surface. And considering the context of his video where he specifically discusses VLTI viewing the sites, claiming that he is “confused” simply because he uses the term VLT instead of VLTI another strawman. You caught him using the wrong term, but that's about it. His video demonstrates that he is talking about VLTI and not confused.

Signed - 101.190.64.5 / talk

Jarrah is not "paraphrasing", his is making a quite different claim: Being able to see to points (of light) separated by the space of a sesame seed and being able to see a sesame seed is not the same claim at all.

No, I'm not just saying that Jarrah is unclear about what he means, I'm saying that there's no reason to dispute the existing text which simply says that Jarrah is conflating two different types of instruments. His claim for accuracy is taken from the VLTI, but he uses it when talking about the possibility of the VLT. The problem is highlighted by comparing the Telegraph link with the VLTI. In the Telegraph article there's a clear hesitancy over whether the VLT will be able to spot the landings ("They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites") which would be nonsensical if the ESO VLTI imaging capabilities referred to the same thing.

Okay, so now Jarrah is back to talking about VLT (not VLTI) - an excellent example of his conflations. That RW "caught him using the wrong term" is quite a problem for your acceptance of Jarrah's claim that he understands what's going on. Our BoN seems to be extremely willing to accept Jarrah's damage control (of the "Oh, I just misspoke"-variety) which only surfaced after RW caught him messing up. And our BoN even continues talking about VLTI, when it ought to be VLT, great.

So no, I see no reason to simply whitewash delete the entire section. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Misc.

“”Now in regard to phrases like "He also claims to be studying for a BSc in astrophysics for many, many, years." Is that mature writing? I think not. I'd lose the "for many, many, years".

—101.190.64.5

Answer: It's called snark and RW does it (a lot). If you don't like it, why not try for a rewrite, but since White simply claims this and has so far signally failed to actually complete a degree which ought to take on the order of three years, I don't think a bit of snark is uncalled for. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN response

Completing a degree in three years assumes he is doing it FULL TIME, in his latest video White claims he had been doing it PART TIME until 2014. Doing any degree part time would take at least six years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGAvLSnQZN0

So this snark as you put it is uncalled for. Signed - 101.190.64.5 / talk

Sooo, I guess we can expect an actual graduation somewhere on the horizon? The problem is that Jarrah has been trading on his status as a student for well, many, many years, so the snark is accurate and quite in line with RW. See also concern troll and tone argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

VLT/VLTI, April 24 2015

How can you allege that White is "deeply confused here", when in fact he specifically discusses using the VLTI for resolving the Apollo sites in his "Fly Jarrah White To The Moon Status REport #22" video. Quoting White from 4:53 onwards: "And so we see that to observe objects as small as the Lunar Module, what we need is a telescope with an angular resolution of at least 0.002 arcseconds. Well in a press release, the European Southern Observatory announced that working as an interferometer the VLT had an angular resolution of 1 milli-arcsecond. That is equal to 0.001 arcseconds. No wonder [Dr. Richard] West was so keen to try and use it to resolve the artifacts." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmVbQZOeuc

Signed - 101.190.27.37

As is pointed out in the article, interferometry is very useful for nearly point sources and very bad for things like the moon that have low surface brightness but relatively bright apparent magnitude. PacWalker 14:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

BoN response. And yet Richard West proposed using VLTI for looking at the moon to try and resolve the Apollo hardware. White even posts a link to an article about this in his FAQ page. That article also specifically discusses using VLTI for resolving the Lunar Module. "Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-on-Moon.html

I'll ask again: how can you allege that White is "deeply confused" when he specifically discusses using VLTI for looking at the artafacts and even cites an article quoting an ESO astronomer who proposed using VLTI for exactly that purpose?

Signed - 101.190.27.37

I think there's a couple of different things going on here, and people are kind of talking at cross purposes.

• Regardless of whether White refers to the VLTI in a video or not, the FAQ (as quoted) refers to the VLT.
• The ESO Press release linked to in the FAQ is about the VLTI, not the VLT, and while it was probably a poor choice of wording, the statement about 'headlights on the moon' was (IMO) not intended to suggest that they could actually resolve something the size of a headlight on the actual moon, but was to give some sense of scale (hence the use of the word 'corresponding').
• The VLTI is (as noted in the RW article) unsuited to lunar imaging, it is intended for viewing distant objects. This is also specifically covered on the ESO FAQ page
• The article linked to by White about Richard West does not propose using the VLTI, it proposes using the VLT, although does mention the possibility of using 'all 4 mirrors', which I assume could be a reference to the VLTI, but if so, well it simply sounds like he was wrong. But to be honest, on reading the article, it reads more as wishful thinking than anything, and I suspect they simply have not been able to get the equipment to perform at that level. (I'm in no way qualified to judge whether it should or should not be possible - the ESO FAQ seems to be unambiguous, regardless of the hopes of Richard West)

In summary, the VLT cannot resolve anything small enough to show the landing site and the VLTI is unsuitable for lunar imaging. So neither one is going to help here, and White's treatment of the topic in the FAQ is not only pretty pointless (as neither the VLT or VLTI are capable of producing a suitable image) but also confused (or at best, badly worded), as he refers to the ESO press release about the VLTI as being about the VLT, and cannot (or will not) accept that the VLTI is unsuitable. To be honest, while his calculations may be correct (again, I'm not qualified), the whole section of his FAQ could be shortened to 'No telescope currently in existence is capable of resolving the landing site in enough detail.' Worm (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Van Allen, April 24 2015

We've been through this already. The findings by Van Allen that White refers to were published in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American and his 1961 Space World issue. In both articles Van Allen implies that he does not believe astronauts can be adequately shielded from the radiation and opts for flying through the radiation free "cones of escape" over the geomagnetic poles, which are far from Apollo's trajectory. White even provides pdfs of the articles in question on his site. Avoiding mention of these articles and instead referring readers to Van Allen's later reply to the Fox special, as though the reply to Fox was the reference White was referring to, is an strawman.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

You (a) don't know what a strawman is, (b) are misreading van Allen's papers grossly, and (c) are ignoring his work on the shielding used. PacWalker 14:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(a) A strawman is when you misrepresent a person's position and then build your argument upon that misrepresentation. That is exactly what RW has done by avoiding mention of the Van Allen articles specifically referenced in White's FAQ, calling his paraphrasing of said articles "categorically untrue" and then pointing readers to his much latter reply to Fox as though said reply was White's reference. (b) Here are the articles in question. Kindly show me how I have misrepresented them. I pointed above that in both articles Van Allen made statements like "Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers" and "owing to the great penetrability of the high energy protons therein, effective shielding is beyond engineering feasibility", which imply that he doubted sufficient shielding could be supplied. And he opts for "taking off through the radiation free zone over the poles", or "cones of escape". (c) References please, by references I mean papers by Van Allen. The Apollo command module was already in development when Van Allen wrote the December 1961 Space World article.

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SpaceWorld.pdf

The fact remains, the findings by Van Allen that White was referring to were published in the 1959 Scientific American and the 1961 Space World. What RW could have wrote was "Yes, Van Allen initially made these statements but later retracted", but instead you avoid mentioning these articles and promptly quote his later reply to Fox. This is a misrepresentation of White's position and therefore a strawman.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

From the 1959 article: "against which space travellers will have to be shielded," indicating a pretty clear lack of belief that said shielding is impossible. PacWalker 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

From the same article: "Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportions of protons to electrons. Because a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers against the effects of radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation free zone over the poles."

This clearly indicates that although Van Allen stated that shielding would help, at the time when he wrote the article he doubted that a sufficient amount of shielding could be supplied.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

And the other: "all manned spacecraft must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed." This also is wholly inconsistent with the statement that he described it as impossible to escape the van Allen belts. PacWalker 15:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this statement contradicts your claim that Van Allen believed shielding was possible. Adequate shielding has either been developed or it has not yet been developed, you can't have it both ways and the statement you quote seems to be leaning towards the latter. Further, you have removed that quote from its context in an attempt to distort its intended meaning. Here is the full quote, with the censored portion in italics: "But, though mechanical and electrical equipment can operate within the high radiation areas, a living organism cannot survive this level of radiation damage. Hence, all manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed."

Earlier in the same article Van Allen also reiterates his previous statement about flying through the radiation free zones over the Earth's poles. "The outer zone is much more difficult to avoid [than the inner zone]. There do appear to be "cones of escape" over the north and south geomagnetic poles. The half-angle of these outward opening cones is about 20°"

And again, these statements were written when the Command Module was under development. So far from being "wholly inconsistent with the statement that he described it as impossible to escape", these statements by Van Allen specifically indicate that he did not believe the shielding requirements could be met at the time and that he opted for a trajectory through a radiation-free zone that is far from Apollo's trajectory.

Clearly, you have neither represented White's position accurately nor have you represented Van Allen's position accurately. You quote Van Allen's later retraction without mentioning his original killer radiation statements that White has accurately paraphrased in his FAQ list. When pressed, you frantically wave your arms in the air and quotemine statements from those original articles in an attempt to twist them into statements supporting Van Allen's later retraction. That's extremely dishonest. If you can't be honest, then you shouldn't be writing Wiki articles.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Tracking Apollo, April 24 2015

Another strawman. In this section of his FAQ page White is simply responding to Apollo defenders who claimed that radio amateurs, Jodrell Bank and others independent of NASA tracked Apollo "all the way to the moon and back", such individuals like shanedk. White points out that these independent individual never made such a claim, that they only tracked it during the time Apollo was near the moon, and the only parties who claim to have tracked Apollo "all the way to the moon" were either NASA's MSFN or NASA's DSN and therefore cannot be considered independent of NASA. If RW thinks it is "silly to demand independent tracking all the way", then I suggest you take it up with the Apollo defenders who erroneously made the claim in the first place instead of trying to pin it on White as though this "silly demand" originated with him.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

I agree that this particular quote fails to display ignorance itself, so I slashed it; we'll see if it stays gone. PacWalker 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks, like someone put it back in. Sigh.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Ayup. Others, as well as I, disagree with PacWalker on this one. --Castaigne (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And I give minimal fucks, so it appears it will stay there. PacWalker 15:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And LO, consensus was achieved! And so it was done. --Castaigne (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain why you and others disagree with PacWalker? The statement clearly doesn't display ignorance by White, so why is it up there?

Signed - 101.190.27.37

I don't so much disagree with the commentary itself, which is kind of fair enough, but the tone. The use of 'openly admits' is indicative of an accusation to me, which is hardly a balanced way of addressing the issue. I think the section could be reworded, but does cover a valid point. Worm (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, the "openly admits" bit is part of Jarrah's quote (everything in the box) so we can't very well begin to mess with that. Do you think the stuff outside the boxes needs adjusting? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Er, yeah, sorry - I didn't make that very clear. What I was trying to get at was that I have no direct problem with the content of White's (quoted) commentary, but the tone suggests that he is not 'simply responding to Apollo defenders', it has a accusatorial slant that sounds a bit off to me. However, I think the RW coverage is a little off too, and could do with some clarity - in my opinion of course. Not quite sure how that would be worded of course, creativity is not my strong suit. If indeed some 'Apollo defenders' (which is a stupid term) have suggested that full journey tracking is evidence for the landings, then that is quite rightly a point to be addressed, but I think the issue is with the way it is covered, rather than the actual facts, which seem to be uncontroversial. Worm (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me to be another of Jarrah's red herrings: When confronted with the fact that some independent sources did pick up some Apollo signals at various intervals of the flight, Jarrah demands that one "independent" tracker needs to have followed the entire Apollo flight, otherwise NASA faked it (because obviously NASA's Deep Space Network was part of the conspiracy). It's a stupid argument no matter which way you look at it, and I don't feel like cuddling the feelings of moonhoaxers.

Imagine someone claiming that because a car was only observed at either side of a hill obstructing the view, the car couldn't have travelled that "invisible" distance and any claims to the contrary are just part of a conspiracy, indeed the car probably doesn't even exist, but is a story made up by the "auto" industry for its own nefarious purposes.

I think this is the kind of warped conspiracy thinking we're dealing with here.

Also, since Jarrah is writing both Qs and As, it's far from clear that anyone is even claiming that Apollo was tracked the entire way by independent observers. Instead, it appears that Jarrah, by phrasing the question in these terms, is setting up this particular straw man specifically so he can set fire to it using the "not the entire way"-false dilemma. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - I think this is the critical point. It's not so much that a full track is not even required - as you say, it's a stupid argument, but that nobody is even claiming that it happened or was needed. That maybe needs to be the point that is addressed. Worm (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't either of you watch those videos that I posted links to earlier? Various opponents of White's have indeed claimed that Apollo was tracked all the way to the moon by independent parties. In these two videos, for example, he specifically responds to shanedk who made this very claim in both his comments and videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJbMXuwnP0 (see from 7:59, below is a transcript in italics)

Shanedk: "As well as hundreds of amateur astronomers and radio enthusiasts who claim to have tracked the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the moon."

White: False. No amateur astronomer or radio ham has ever claimed to have tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back. At best, all they have ever claimed is to have tracked it when it was on or near the moon and, if they're lucky, a handful of signals on the ride home. This is nothing that can't be pulled off with an unmanned space craft. In the June 1972 issue of QST, ham operators Paul Wilson and Richard Knadle wrote: "The Moon is is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations in Australia, Spain and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo missions always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States amateur! Nevertheless, five lunar parking orbits (LPO) and several hours of return trip transmissions were observed by this experimenter.""

In the continuation of the above video, White discusses how he got into a huge shouting match with shanedk in the comments over this. I won't type up another transcript, but during that discussion shanedk cited Jodrell Bank as having tracked it "all the way and back", to which White quoted an email from a Bob Pritchard from the observatory in question, who specifies clearly that they only tracked Apollo when it was within 1,000 miles of the moon. Not all the way there and back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QrvGmfUxRA

Watching these two videos, it is clear that shanedk is one of White's opponents who has erroneously claimed Apollo was tracked "all the way to the moon and back" by independents. And it is this claim by these Apollo defenders that White has debunked in his videos and on his site by pointing out what these independents have actually claimed, and that the only ones who claim "all the way and back" are NASA's MSFN or DSN. So this is hardly a strawman or red herring by White.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

As I said, not looked it up, because I don't think it matters. A full journey track is completely unnecessary in terms of evidence for the moon landings. I think the RW approach here is slightly off kilter, but that's entirely my opinion. If anything, too much attention is paid to it by both White and his opponents. It's a massive red herring. Worm (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear BoN, I admit to apparently being wrong, but why does shanedk's opinion matter? There's such a thing as nutpicking you know. Just because some of Jarrah's opponents make wrong and/or ignorant claims doesn't make this argument any better. Anyway, I've now rephrased the text to forestall such nutpicking. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It matters because a) RW is grossly misrepresenting White along these lines, and b) this "independent tracking all the way" is a very widespread claim. shanedk is just one of many Apollo defenders who claim Apollo was tracked "all the way to the moon and back" by people independent of NASA, and White has spent considerable time through many videos debunking to such claims. Considering the Wilson & Knadle quote that White uses, the one about the moon being below the horizon most the time for amateurs, it is clear White knows that these independent individuals couldn't possibly have tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back because of those limitations. So this section of his site hardly demonstrates "basic lack of knowledge about space flight", quite the opposite. It demonstrates White correctly debunking an erroneous claim made by his opponents, a claim that has no doubt been brought up a lot - or he wouldn't have dedicated a whole section of his FAQ to it.

And your car analogy is laughable. Why wouldn't Alice or Bob get into their own car and just follow the same route that Carl said he took? Driving up a hill is not like sending a man to the moon or even into space.

It could also be argued that "intermittent point tracking" doesn't really count as verification, independent or otherwise. Also on the FAQ page, White discusses how voices of cosmonauts were heard from Zond 5 and although some observers thought it was manned, those voices came either from a tape player or were transmitted to the probe which then repeated the signals. Quoting White's FAQ page: "Jarrah has personally asked various radio operators how they know Apollo telecommunications were not just another Zond 5 stunt, and so far none of them have given him a direct answer. And considering the Zond 5 hoax has been officially revealed, Jarrah is amazed that anyone would cite telecommunications as evidence for Apollo, let alone consider it their best evidence!"

Bottom line: White has not set up a red herring, strawman or false dilemma. He has simply debunked a common claim that he has come across in comments and in videos that he's responded to. And his debunking of it does not demonstrate a "basic lack of knowledge on space flight". The only strawman that I can see is RW trying to use White as a scapegoat by pinning this "silly demand" on him.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Dear BoN, that other random people on the internet are as ignorant as Joe Blow shanedk^Who? doesn't make Jarrah's argument any better. The car example illustrates why and we could simply imagine that Alice and Bob are too poor to afford a car, or something similar (jeez, look at the principle here for chrissakes).

On the contrary. This "all the way and back" claim has been adopted by mainstream Apollo defenders, like Phil Plait. He made this claim during his debate with Joe Rogan on the Penn Jilette radio show. The key part of their argument is that people independent of NASA tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back. These Apollo defenders don't seem to understand the definition of independent, because in addition to claiming Hams, Jodrell Bank and the Soviets tracked Apollo "to and back", they even cite various MSFN and DSN facilities as "independent verification". Hell, these facilities are even cited on Wikipedia's entry on "third-party evidence for Apollo"! As White argues in his videos and on his website, MSFN and DSN comprises of NASA owned or NASA contracted radio facilities, so these can hardly be considered "independent parties".

So no, this is not a strawman that White has built, he's debunking a major argument that has erroneously been cited by mainstream and casual Apollo defenders alike.

And even if you don't own a car, you can ask to borrow someone else's car or at the very least ask them to give you a ride. So no, your analogy illustrates nothing.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Again, Jarrah has chosen to respond to an obvious erroneous claim by a random guy on the web and post it in a Q&A as if it was somehow a critical objection to the reality of the Apollo flight. It's like using Joe-Blow-on-the-Web's misunderstanding of evolution as an argument for creationism. Sure, Joe Blow is wrong on the details, but why should we care about his opinions, especially when the counter claim is simply irrelevant?

See above. Prominent mainstream Apollo defenders have used this claim too. It's not simply an erroneous claim made by some random guy on the web. It's the sole crux of an extremely widespread claim that Apollo was tracked all the way to the moon and back by independents. He has shown that this is not the case.

Furthermore, the whole section of this RW article was to "demonstrate [White's] lack of basic knowledge about space travel." How can you allege that White's making a "silly demand" and is ignorant of the impossibility of one person to track Apollo all the way due to the moon being below the horizon, when in fact White explicitly quotes Wilson and Knadle along these lines in the very section you quoted from.

Here is the Jarrah White quote used by RW with its continuation in bold: "No. There are some known Ham radio operators who attest to having picked up signals from Apollo (Paul Wilson, Richard Knadle, Larry Baysinger, Sven Grahn), but none of them can attest to having tracked these probes all the way to the moon and back. Grahn for example only testifies to having picked up signals from Apollo 17 when it was in earth orbit, when it was on the moon and in lunar orbit. He openly admits to not tracking it the whole way there and back. Baysinger only received communications from Apollo 11 during the alleged moonwalk, again not the way to the moon and back. Wilson & Knadle received signals from a diversity of Apollo missions2, but again only when the crafts were in lunar orbit – an exception being Apollo 15 in which they received a handful of signals on the alleged flight home. The two were quoted to saying: “The moon is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations in Spain, Australia and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!”

Hell, from my chair that looks to me like RW purposely excluded the continuation of this statement so that they could build their own strawman: insinuating that White doesn't know of the problems one man would face trying to track a moon bound craft all the way, when in fact he actually used a quote explaining exactly why it is impossible.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

This is why it's a combo of nutpicking and straw manning: Jarrah chose the opinion of some ignorant dude as a stand-in for "Apollo defenders" (aka non-moonhoaxers) and then used it to set up a red herring argument involving the implied false dilemma where the lack of independent tracking all the way was depicted as a crucial weakness in the arguments of non-moonhoaxers with the the alternative being "didn't happen, NASA faked it". ScepticWombat (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

See above, White has not set up a red herring, or nutpick, or strawman or whatever logical fallacy that you want to pull out of your ass. He has accurately debunked a claim that has been made by Phil Plait and others. Even if you take Hams, Jodrell Bank and other truly independent parties out of the picture, there is still the widespread misconception that Parkes, Honeysuck Creek, Madrid, Goldstone and other MSFN/DSN facilities are independent of NASA. While they do claim to have tracked Apollo to and back, they were either NASA employees or NASA contractors. So claiming that these facilities are independent of NASA is ludicrous. And there is nothing wrong with White shooting down this misconception in his FAQ list.

And again, how can you allege that White is "ignorant" of the impossibility of a single individual tracking Apollo all the way due to the time the moon is below the horizon and is therefore making silly demands, when in fact White uses a direct quote from Wilson and Knadle along these lines in the very section you quoted from? The quote used by White again: "The moon is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations in Spain, Australia and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!”

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Sooo, Jarrah himself knows that his demand for independent tracking is impractical and this makes it more reasonable, somehow? Thanks for pointing out that I was apparently missing hypocrisy in this train wreck of an "argument". ScepticWombat (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You really are desperate, aren't you? Answer my question: How can you allege that White is ignorant of the problems of a single individual trying to track Apollo all the way and back, when in fact he quotes a couple radio operators along these lines and the exact problems are outlined in said quote?

Just accept it: the mainstream Apollo defenders got it wrong, and White called them out on it. Simple as that. There are no logical fallacies on his part. And trying to make up excuses to keep this erroneous and (as you put it) libelous section of RW online is only making it worse for yourself.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

And why do keep calling it "his demand", when it was White's opponents who were so adamant that Apollo was tracked all the way to the moon and back by independent third parties? You are obviously going after the wrong guy.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

I'm not claiming that Jarrah is ignorant of the facts.

Aren't you? Do I need to quote the header of this section of this article: "White presents a long list of Frequently Asked Questions[5] on his website that are intended to supplement his videos; however these only serve to illustrate his basic lack of knowledge about space flight."

If this section does not demonstrate ignorance on White's part, then it should be snipped.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

I'm pointing out that his knowledge that independent tracking was impracticable strengthens the conclusion that he's deliberately constructing a red herring. Rather than simply pointing out that independent tracking would be impracticable and that shanedk or whoever claimed it took place is wrong, Jarrah instead decided to list it as if it was a good objection against the validity and practicality of the Apollo flight in general.

What are you talking about? If you quote a statement by someone that effectively debunks what your opponent has said, then you've pointed how why your opponent's claims are impractical. That's exactly what White did. He has not set up a strawman or red herring, he's simply debunking a claim that has been erroneously cited by what he calls the pro-Apollo crowd.

Hell, White himself even practically told you why he made that section on his site. Do I need to quote his above comment? " the section on my site regarding Hams and MSFN is in response to individuals who specifically claim that Russia and Hams "tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back" (I know for a fact Killian made such a claim, and I recall Plait claiming it somewhere) and erroneously claim that the MSFN stations were independent of NASA despite the fact that they were either NASA owned or NASA contracted. Considering how common this claim has popped up, how many videos he's dedicated to discussing this, I'd be surprised if White didn't feature it in his FAQ list.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Also, who (except for you and Jarrah) has made shanedk, or whatever other random guys & girls on the Interwebz you want to trot out, to be "mainstream Apollo defenders"? Again, this seems to be a clear case of nutpicking and this sounds an awful lot like Gore's Law within global warming denialism. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you read my previous comment? The claim has been made by Phil Plait on radio shows and Wikipedia has a whole section in which they cite MSFN as "third party evidence" for Apollo. White himself has even used clips from Plait's interview in one of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqkkGd8M0Y8

Here's the original Plait interview that White used, in the same interview Plait also cited Australia, even references "a very cute little movie called The Dish", as though the facilities in question had no association with NASA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpnGCXJ9rTk (from 5:25 onwards)

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Now you're citing a different claim entirely, namely whether the tracking was independent, rather than complete which is getting into moving the goalposts-territory.

You really love to accuse people of logical fallacies without a shred of evidence, don't you? The whole section is about whether the tracking was 1) independent, and 2) all the way to the moon and back. This is hardly moving goal posts. I'm simply pointing out how widespread this claim has become and how White's opponents have lumped the MSFN in together with the radio amateurs and Soviets and whoever as though MSFN was also independent of NASA. See below.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Also, you're less than scrupulous in your depiction of what WP says about MSFN: It's not listed in third party tracking section, but instead in the section on Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel which emphasise that "Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens."

You're assuming that all the people involved in this in and outside of NASA were all part of the conspiracy. Nope, this doesn't make your objections any more sound - get a grip. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly; those local citizens working at the stations were either NASA contractors or NASA employees. If you are employed at a NASA facility, then you're a NASA employee! So these stations hardly belong in a section labelled "Tracked by non-NASA personnel". That is like saying "Jacks is employed by a McDonalds restaurant, but doesn't work for McDonalds".

Secondly, I think it is you who needs to get a grip and read what was actually said on White's page. The Q is "Weren't there independent parties tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back?", which is a claim that has been made by Phil Plait, shanedk and others. And then White answers by specifically discussing Hams, the Soviets, Jodrell Bank, and MSFN. First goes on to explain why the first three didn't and couldn't track Apollo all the way, and then goes on explain that MSFN were not independent because they were either NASA contractors or NASA employees.

As for whether or not the MSFN staff were involved in a conspiracy, White has a seperate entry about that on his FAQ list. It's right below the one we're talking about.

In summary. There are no strawmen or nutpicking or red herrings set up in that section. White's opponents (including the big boys like Phil Plait who frequently does interviews) have erroneously alleged that independent parties tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back. The parties they refer to include radio Hams, the USSR, Jodrell Bank and the MSFN. White goes on to show the flaws in this claim by pointing out a) Hams, USSR and Jodrell Bank never claimed to track it "all the way" and couldn't have been able to do so anyway, and b) the MSFN were NASA's network and can therefore can hardly be considered independent of NASA. Jarrah White himself even told you this above. The section demonstrates no evidence of him "lacking knowledge on space travel", it simply shows White debunking a claim by his opponents.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Sigh, okay once more for those at the back of the class:

Jarrah turns a minor flaw made mainly by random people of the webz (that independents didn't track Apollo all the way to the moon and back) into an argument for moonhoaxery. WP quite reasonably points out the completely unwarranted assumption that independent contractors and/or local hired help at MSFN wouldn't spill the beans. This, especially in the light of Jarrah's knowledge of why independent tracking was impracticable, is what turns this Q&A into a red herring argument: It implies that the entire Apollo flight was fishy or somehow less well-documented than we could expect.

How many times do I have to say this? It's not a minor flaw made by random people. You've got people like Phil Plait with PhD in astronomy going on radio and television claiming that it was tracked all the way by folks with no ties to NASA. Then you've got his fans like shanedk, whose videos making the same erroneous claim have been watched tens of thousands of times. If the vast majority of Apollo defenders are going to insist that Apollo was so, as you put it, well documented because it was tracked "all the way to and back" by independent parties, and it turns out the only people tracking it "all the way to and back" were in someway associated with NASA, then from my chair it looks like backlash is to be expected!

Signed - 101.190.27.37

After all, this is a faq related Jarrah's opinion that the Apollo flights were faked, but the argument simply rests on some people - not NASA of similar official organisations - making mistaken claims and the argument focus on irrelevant and impractical demands, i.e. of independent tracking all the way. It's the context that makes it into a red herring: Yes, claims of independent (by Jarrah's very strict definition) tracking of the entire Apollo flight are wrong, but such claims are also simply irrelevant to the greater issue of whether the moon landings were faked (SPOILER: The answer is no, btw).

I think you need to have another read of the FAQ list. The list isn't exclusively about White's opinion that Apollo was faked. It seems he's also used the list for shooting down undeniably erroneous claims too. Pieces of so-called evidence for Apollo that in actuality don't prove anything. For example, quite of few Apollo hoax debunk websites cite the survival of Zond 5's biological payload as proof that humans can survive the radiation. In his FAQ page, White points out that this is an apples and oranges comparison because the lifeforms are more resistant to radiation than humans. He also points out that retro-reflectors do not necessarily prove manned landings, as the Russians landed two unmanned. It is clear he has taken this same approach with the "independents tracked Apollo all the way" claim.

White seems to take a similar approach in his videos. In addition to voicing his opinions on why he believes Apollo was faked, he also takes the time to point out why certain pieces of "evidence" for Apollo is wrong and therefore shouldn't be cited as evidence. Be it pointing out that turtles can take more radiation than humans, or that unmanned probes can carry retro-reflectors, or that the independent tracking all the way claim is wrong. White's opinions on the Apollo program do not matter as far as pointing out these errors go. Personally, I'm all for getting things right and would appreciate if anyone pointed out if we were making a mistake, even if it was pointed out by someone on the other side of the fence. White himself even told you what this particular section of his FAQ was for: that it was made in response to individuals who have used this erroneous "all the way and back tracking by independents" claim and that's all.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

I'm a bit curious, though, why this concern for Jarrah? Is it because you're a fellow moonhoaxer, or do you just have some sort of soft spot for the guy, or do you think he's being treated unfairly in general? I mean your level of commitment is rather noteworthy - especially given that you haven't really managed to convince anyone so far. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My commitment stems from the fact that the information on this site has easily been shown to be wrong (and libelous), and yet it is still up on this site. Above I have shown that White has in fact discussed using VLTI for resolving the hardware in his video and even cited an ESO scientist who proposed the same thing (long before this article was even created!), which proves that he is not "deeply confused" between VLT and VLTI. I have shown that RW blatantly ignored the Van Allen articles that White accurately paraphrased, and instead called said paraphrasing "categorically untrue" and referred readers to his much later retraction as though said retraction was White's reference. And I have shown that White merely debunked a erroneous claim that has unfortunately become widespread; and yet through a series of misrepresentations and attempts to pin the erroneous claim on White, RW has tried to twist this into "evidence" of White setting up a strawman or some other logical fallacy.

If this site was properly run, all three of these erroneous and libelous sections would have been cut long ago.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Furthermore, your persistence to keep reinstating easily disproved accusations will appear to vindicate Jarrah White's conviction that this article was written by someone with an axe to grind

Signed - 101.190.27.37

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, so the condensed version is that our BoN is a fellow moonhoaxer, self-proclaimed champion of all things Jarrah White and that all those not buying into moonhoaxing in general and White's version in particular who dare to make fun of both has an axe to grind. Great, glad we got that settled. Now all our BoN needs to do is actually convince anyone that (s)he's right about any of this. Please do keep trying, though I'd suggest putting in a good word with Saint Jude, considering the level of success so far... ScepticWombat (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that I was a fellow moonhoaxer. I simply said that the accusations against Jarrah White on this section can easily be shown to be wrong.

You said that White is "deeply confused" between VLTI and VLT. Yet in this video that he published on August 22nd 2013, White specifically discusses using VLTI for resolving hardware on the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmVbQZOeuc (4:50 to 5:19)

And he has quoted Dr Richard West who proposed the same thing in 2002: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-on-Moon.html

So the section alleging that he is "deeply confused" between VLT and VLTI should be cut.

A follow up to my earlier message. The phrase used on White's FAQ page is "Very Large Telescope (VLT) array". As in an array of telescopes, not just the one. And according to Wikipedia, "telescope array" is another phrase for "telescope interferometer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array

This coupled with his August 22nd 2013 video further indicate that he is not confused between VLT and VLTI.

And adds more to the 'confused' side. Because a phrase also used on the FAQ is "This means the Very Large Telescope is perfect to resolve man made equipment left behind on the lunar surface". Well, no it isn't.

He probably means VLT array or Very Large Telescope interferometer. He specifically discusses using VLTI in his August 2013 video and West discusses using all four telescope mirrors to look at the moon in the Telegraph article White cited. So we need not second guess what White means. The fact that he didn't use the clarifying term in some places of his FAQ is irrelevant. The August 2013 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's proposing to use VLTI to look at the moon.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

And neither is the VLTI. Even if we accept that White isn't confused about the difference between the VLT and the VLTI (which isn't clear from the text, but let's be generous and attribute it to typos), he is definitely confused about what they are capable of, because neither one is capable of resolving man-made equipment left on the moon. No telescope in existence would appear to be capable of it. Dr Richard West hoped the VLT or VLTI would be, but he appears to be have been hoping in vain. C'est la vie. Move on. Worm (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, according to the communications with ESO that White shows in his August 2013 video, ESO never used the VLTI to look at the moon because looking at the moon is "not considered a good use of time", not because of technical limitations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmVbQZOeuc (2:50-3:37)

And I have seen the ESO FAQ that you linked to above. The article gives no explanation as to why VLTI can't be used to look at the moon. That is bare assertion.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

You stated that White's paraphrasing of James Van Allen's findings is "categorically untrue" and quote his reply to the Fox special. But the findings that White is referring to were those published in the March 1959 Scientific American and December 1961 Space World.

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SpaceWorld.pdf

I have read the articles in question and it is clear that White has accurately paraphrased what was said in them. Van Allen repeatedly stated that the radiation levels were too high for humans, that adequate shielding had not been developed and he proposed flying through the radiation free zone over the polar region.

What RW could have said was something like: "Yes, it is true that Van Allen originally thought the belts were deadly, but later retracted". But instead you avoid mentioning these articles entirely and promptly quote his reply to Fox.

Not discussing White's specific references is an omission fallacy and you are using the Fox reply as though the reply was White's reference! That is a strawman.

If you are not going to discuss the original Van Allen papers that indeed say the radiation belts are lethal, then this whole section should be cut. Because it is a total misrepresentation of White's position.

Finally, we've been through this for more than enough times. White's opponents have claimed Apollo was tracked "all the way and back" by independents, and White has shown that those truly independent from NASA did no such thing and that those who did track it all the way were not independent of NASA. White himself has even told you point blank that this particular section was written in response to such individuals.

This never demonstrated "ignorance of space travel" by White and should have been cut. Instead you have now maliciously twisted it to allege he set it up as a strawman or red herring fallacy.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

You've already had this explained to you multiple times ScepticWombat (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You have explained nothing. And by reinstating easily disproved and (as you put it) libelous accusations, you yourself are a troll.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Wow, the "I'm rubber you're glue"-approach is really SO convincing... Well, I'm only responding to correct one claim: I'm most emphatically not the one insisting that there are any "libellous accusations"; if you try to do a search of this talk page you'll find that this claim is only made 5 times: Once by Jarrah and four times by you. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I misread the Fossil Record, sorry about that. It was actually Weaseloid who said the page was libelous when he removed your reversions. Quoting him from the Fossil Record: "Some of these statements have described as libellous by the subject of the article. This needs to be resolved on the talk page; don't just revert them back in"

But you have not resolved anything. Not only have you reverted easily disproved accusations back in, you have also made the situation even worse by adding in new allegations that White set one of those sections up a strawman or red herring or even calling him a hypocrite.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Aaaand you're still reading the fossil record wrong. Note that Weaseloid didn't claim that Jarrah was right, but simply reiterated Jarrah's claims, advocated prudence (I assume to avoid risking a potential lawsuit against RW), and referred editors to the talk page before they reinsert stuff

Weaseloid reiterated White's claim that the stuff said about him was libelous. Weaseloid did not dispute White's libel claim, therefore he agreed that the statements on this page were libelous - or he wouldn't have removed the statements, requested that they be resolved AND specifically requested they not be reinstated.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

- hence the debate we've had here. Allow me to recapitulate:

1. Resolving stuff on a talk page doesn't mean simply agreeing with moonhoaxers and their friends who don't like to see their silly conspiracy theories ridiculed.
2. The article is already markedly different than when Weaseloid wrote that comment, meaning that editors haven't simply been reverted the earlier blanket deletions.
3. Apart from this cautionary note, Weaseloid hasn't come to your aid, nor have anyone else bought your de facto attempts at whitewashing (no pun intended).

I've just been the one silly enough to actually waste my time responding to your argumentum ad nauseam, because I seem to suffer from a bad case of the SIWOTI syndrome.

ScepticWombat (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Nor does it involve reinstating claims that can easily be proven to be false. Namely: insisting that White is confused between VLTI and VLT despite the fact that videos which long predate this article show that he is indeed talking about VLTI; ignoring White's Van Allen references and calling his paraphrasing of those references "categorically untrue" despite the fact that what was said in his references was exactly as paraphrased; and attempting to use him as a scapegoat for the "independent tracking all the way and back" claim. By the way, what makes you think I'm a conspiracy theorist? This has nothing to do with "not wanting to see silly conspiracy theories ridiculed" it has everything to do with removing false and libelous accusations.
2. The only thing different between the way it was before and now is the addition of your completely unsubstantiated accusation that White's section on "independent tracking all the way" was made as a strawman or red herring or exhibits hypocrisy by White. This just adds more libel to the article, especially when coupled with the other two easily proven false claims mention above.
3. You can all it whitewashing all you want, what I am doing is trying to resolve the issue by removing false and libelous claims that people like you have been foolish enough to reinstate against Weaseloid's requests. Shall we contact Weaseloid and ask him to step in?

Signed - 101.190.27.37

This recapitulation, by the way, is what we call a coda. It comes at the very end of this piece, like most. In other words, b'bye now. PacWalker 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, BoN why don't you plead your case to the Weasel and see what happens? It's not like you need anyone's permission to attract other editors' attention to the article. Write some messages on some user talk pages and, who knows, maybe the mob will come to your aid? Considering your firm opinion that the article is an unfair hit piece it's worth a shot and I kind of wonder why you haven't already pursued this course of action. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

He has gone and delivered a manifesto to Weaseloid, you should go read it. Wahmbulance needed. PacWalker 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe BoN is right and all those, bar him and Jarrah, who have contributed here so far are either groupthinkers or contrarians? I don't think it's likely but it's not physically impossible and a feature of either group is that their members can't spot their own flaws. But yeah, it does sound like the wahmbulance has been summoned. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh, the wham blustery (heh autocorrect made a joke) care is less for the wrongness and more for the "all these people ignored you! Come set them straight because I can't!" element. PacWalker 08:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I also think that the BoN misunderstands the gist of (as I read it) the Weasel's intention, which seems simply to have been advising caution so as not risk any lawsuits. Also, RW has had a rather zig-zaggery course on "Cry libel! And let slip the dogs of deleted!" Some articles have been axed entirely, while others have seen little or no change. It seems to vary partly with how directly the subject threatens legal action (people claiming libel on behalf of others are usually ignored as most claims come from disgruntled fans with no legal (under)standing) and partly from where: English libel laws are notorious, giving Brits or people with access to English courts a far greater chilling effect.

Of course there have probably also been cases where revision was in order (snark is not perfidy, after all), though I can't really think of any that I've noticed, the closest thing being deletions of articles where the subject was simply some random internet nut (yes, I know there's no such thing as a notability policy around here, but there seems to be a consensus that RW shouldn't target random teenagers playing at being keyboard warriors from their parents' basement or the practically endless ranks of webcranks, unless they're either better known than most, more spectacularly insane and/or wrong than most, have some other special X-factor, or a combination of said characteristics). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Jarrah White article

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Weaseloid. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Weasel, I wonder if you have any suggestions or ideas as to how, in practice, the libel claim can be resolved. I didn't realise that it was the same version the complaint was against - as the complaint was 6 months old, I assumed it had been fixed long ago. I guess we'll just have to keep the current innocuous Wikipedia-style version and cower in fear of the lawyers. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the original comments were that old. However, I see that at least a couple of the things highlighted in those comments (such as the rather ignoble suggestion that White is lying about studying for a degree) were still present in the article. I also see that a lot of stuff has been posted on the talk page & don't really have time to pick through it personally now, but I don't think this & this are good ways to deal with somebody who is trying to remove contentious content. Also there seems to be a big debate about whether he is justified in blocking people from commenting on his YouTube videos (if I understand correctly). Is that really such a big deal? It's something that YouTube allows you to do, that many users do, and that some of our articles defend people doing. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it depends on what commenters get blocked for. The contention here is that White blocks people for (correctly) calling Ralph René a crank. White's answer on the talk page is that the block was for calling René "deliberately deceptive" which is of course one possible interpretation of René's crank (the other would be ignorance and obliviousness). The problematic thing here is also White's interpretation of "deceptive", because he goes on to claim on the talk page that he has "no interest nor need to be deceptive to my audience, and anyone who says otherwise I consider a troll/oxygen-thief who is not worth my time or attention." However, I don't think you can be a moonhoaxer and avoid being deceptive (either deliberately or through self-imposed ignorance) any more than you can be a creationist and avoid deception when addressing natural history.

As for the degree, I didn't interpret it as suggesting that White was lying, just that he seems to be a perpetual student, i.e. someone who may be enlisted, but has been for years without much progression in their studies. You're right that it shouldn't be able to be interpreted as White lying; instead, we should simply document how long White has been trading on his B.Sc. student status and leave it at that with an update when he finally graduates.

I'll give it a crack in a week or so and reinstate the bits that aren't libellous (e.g. the dubious prospects of White either raising enough money for his ticket to the moon based on the fruits of his efforts so far and the equally dubious prospects of him being able to actually go, even if he raised the money, due to the less than clear abilities of private space tourism to deliver such a journey). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid, against your specific requests not to reinstate the libelous content on the Jarrah White page without resolving its problems, certain editors such as ScepticWombat, PacWalker and FuzzyCatPotato have been reinstating the criticisms of White's FAQ page. I don't have a problem with criticism so long as it is valid. However the criticism in question can easily be shown to be wrong.

Namely, RW alleges that White is confused between VLTI and VLT despite the fact that White specifically discusses using VLTI to look at the Apollo sites in his video posted on August 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmVbQZOeuc (4:51-5:19)

On his FAQ page, White cited two articles by James Van Allen. One published in the March 1959 Scientific Americam and one published in the December 1961 Space World. In both articles Van Allen specifically states that the radiation would be on the scale of 10s to 100 of roentgens per hour and lethal to astronauts, that he did not believe shielding against the radiation could be developed and proposed launching through the radiation free zones over the poles, which are restricts to within 20degrees inclined from the geomagnetic poles. Taking into consideration what Van Allen wrote, White's paraphrasing of what was said is essentially correct. But RW ignores these articles, calls White's paraphrasing of said articles "categorically untrue" and instead directs readers to Van Allen's much later retraction when he responded the the Fox moon hoax special. Not mentioning these articles that White referred to was one of the complaints that White had about this site.

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SpaceWorld.pdf

Finally, in his complaint White argued that his Q&A about "independent tracking all the way and back" was written in response to various Apollo defenders who have erroneously claimed that Apollo was independently tracked "all the way to the moon and back". In his videos and his FAQ, White argues that Ham radio operators, Jodrell Bank and the Soviets did no such thing, they only claim to have tracked Apollo when it was on or near the moon. He even quotes hams Paul Wilson and Richard Knadle as saying that they couldn't track it all the way because of the time the moon was below the horizon. He then goes on to point out that the only people tracking Apollo all the way were the Manned Spaceflight Network and Deep Space Network, which comprised of NASA owned or NASA contracted facilities which obviously therefore cannot be independent of NASA.

I have posted links to White's many videos on this subject, showing that he has responded to people like Phil Plait and shanedk who make these erroneous "independent all the way and back tracking" claims. But ScepticWombat has made the RW even more libelous than before. He has not only reinstated this section, he has also reworded it to allege that White made it up as a strawman or red herring. And when I pointed out that White used the Wilson and Knadle quote about the moon being out of their view, he accused White of hypocrisy. Probably an even more libelous accusation.

So in summary, against your wishes that the section be resolved and not reinstated until such time, various editors have reverted libelous and easily debunked statements back in and even made one third of the section even more libelous than before. When I tried to step in, they simply undo my edits, poison the well by calling it "Whitewashing" and block my IP address.

Signed - 101.190.27.37 3 May 2015

The context of the blocks the above BoN is complaining about:

1. A ½-hour bloc for edit warring on April 24.
2. On the expiration of the ½-hour block, the edit warring continued, leading to a 2½-day 1-hour block.
3. Two 3-second attention-grabbing blocks on May 3.

Oh, and all blocks were by PacWalker, btw. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

2.5 days? No... I gave him 62.83 minutes, roughly speaking. 63 minutes on the nose, because apparently I can't math? PacWalker 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My bad, Pac, I forgot I'd only divided seconds into minutes, not hours - sorry, I stand corrected. But that actually makes the BoN's whining about blocking even more overblown, 1½ hours of blocks for edit warring - jeez, big whoop obstruction... nah, didn't think so either. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem; I should've just gone with the familiar 3141 second block... especially since I messed my maths up... PacWalker 08:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I saw that the Jarrah White article couldn't be edited and assumed that my IP address was still blocked. Still, the fact remains that the article keeps getting locked after my edits are removed. And despite all the links that's I've posted that prove that the accusations are unsubstantiated, said accusations have been reinstated and unresolved against Weaseloids wishes.

Signed - 101.190.27.37 4 May 2015

The article has been locked again by AgingHippie who prabably got tired of constantly having to roll back your whitewashing which has consisted of little more than blanket deletions of something like half the article and the insertion of a brief bland paragraph about Jarrah having to take video off YT due to DMCA complaints and a link to where he reposted them. I once again call your attention to the fact that no one have so far found any merit in your claims and that resolution doesn't mean you simply getting your way.

Also, the lock concerns anonymous (BoN) editors only, so make an RW account and you can edit it. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You can call it whitewashing all you want. My insertion of a brief passing mention about White's video page is more factual than the "half the article" that I have shown time and time again to be false and therefore should be deleted. The fact that no one but Weaseloid has seen merit is astounding considering the fact that a) I have posted a link to a video by White from 2013 that proves he is not confused between VLT and VLTI, b) I have shown that the research by Van Allen in question was published in the 1959 Scientific American and 1961 Space World, and that White has accurately paraphrased what was said in those articles while RW has ignored his references, and c) the section about "independent tracking all the way" was indeed written in response to prominent Apollo defenders who have unfortunately made this claim, just as White told you on this Talk page. And yet instead of letting of letting it go like any rational person would, you have maliciously blown things out of proportion to create a false impression that White created a strawman or false dilemma.

I might create a RW account, but considering how you and other editors blatantly disregard the links contradicting your accusations, that signifies to me that RW doesn't give a damn about the facts and is more interested in posting unsubstantiated lies and libelous accusations about their opponents. With how criminally negligent and cavalier about accurate reporting RW apparently is, I'd rather not be party to this and remain anonymous. I don't think big of my opponents either, but if I were to write an article about them I'd at least make sure that the information I write is factual before publishing.

I would most hate to be in your shoes if White sues and you have to stand before a judge and explain why you persisted in reinstating libelous content against the wishes of Weaseloid and after all the links that I posted that proved the content was indeed false and libelous.

Signed - 101.190.27.37

Tell me, are you actually angling for a block? You do realise that brandishing frivolous claims of libel around are among the few things you can get blocked for at RW? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. If the article contains any libel it should be removed or rectified. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct. It doesn't, so this is what is referred to as failed intimidation at best. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note how I wrote frivolous, Weaseloid? That's when claims of libel are used by people who have bugfuck legal grounds to claim it (e.g. claiming libel on behalf on someone else without having any legal basis for doing so) use libel allegations to try to intimidate RW editors. And yes, such attempts at intimidations do indeed carry the possibility of being blocked (unlike doxxing which is pretty much an auto-ban offence) if the mob at the chicken coop decides so, of course.

And Weaseloid? It would be really nice if you actually engaged in the discussion or at least evaluated the merit of the claim instead of inserting such minimalistic drive-by platitudes. Sure, who could disagree that libellous content should be removed. The question is whether this article actually does contain libellous material. If you think so, please highlight what needs to be removed or, even better, remove it yourself, or, and this is the best solution, do an actual rewrite. The BoN has continuously claimed that you support his blanket deletions, so if you could at least address that one claim, that'll leave the discussion a bit more enlightened.

So far, the controversies on this page and the talk page seem to me entirely analogous to the (attempted) brouhaha stirred up by Rome Viharo and his sidekick, but of course I might be mistaken, nor am I an impartial observer. That's why it would be nice to get someone other than myself or PacWalker to check the article, because both of our views are already recorded as are the BoN's claims. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've had a read through and I don't see anything that strikes me as potentially libellous. While I'm not a lawyer, I do read Popehat. :) --SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Saw this article mentioned in Saloon Bar and came to see what the fuss is all about. RW's opinion that White's conclusions are in error (or is confused about some data) is not remotely approaching libel, or anything like libel. Leuders (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto for claimed "inaccuracies". Straightforward factual errors in an article are easily fixed. But the "inaccuracies" cliam is often used as an excuse for an endless round of complaints, such as, "you have misrepresented my position/failed to take into account what the raw data proves/ignored Professor Crankenstein's solid support of my work/are suppressing my civic awards and unrelated things I was right about/refuse to correct errors noted by my latest 10,000 word blog post rebutting all your distortions" etc. Leuders (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet you haven't fixed anything. I have posted link to a video by White from 2013 in which he explicitly discusses using VLTI for resolving Apollo hardware and quoted Dr. Richard West who proposed the exact same thing. Yet RW continues to insinuate that White is confused between VLTI and VLT. Alleging he is confused after all the counter evidence shown is libelous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGmVbQZOeuc

I have shown that the research by Van Allen that White refers to was published in the March 1959 Scientific American and the December 1961 Space World. Taking into consideration what was said in those articles, White's paraphrasing of these articles is essentially correct. Yet RW continues to call this paraphrasing "categorically untrue", avoids mention of these articles and only mentions Van Allen's much later retraction.

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf

http://moonfaker.com/images/misc/VanAllenBelts-SpaceWorld.pdf

White himself has told you that his section on "independent tracking all the way" was written in response to Apollo defenders who cite NASA's DSN or MSFN as "independent verification" and erroneously cite Hams and Jodrell Bank or whoever as tracking it "all the way and back". In his FAQ page and his videos he shows that DSN and MSFN cannot be independents because they were NASA networks and those truly independent have never claimed "all the way" tracking because of the time the moon was below the horizon. I have posted links to many of White's videos in which he responds to such Apollo defenders. Yet RW alleges that he made this up as a strawman or red herring or false dilemma. RW has also tried to pin what they call a "silly demand" on White despite the fact that the silly demand was made by people like Phil Plait who should know better. RW even goes so far as to call him a "hypocrite".

Not one of these sections demonstrate how White is "ignorant of space travel" and if anything it demonstrates that RW is incapable of representing his position accurately. The fact that the links contradicting these libelous claims have been continuously ignored suggests RW is being deliberately deceptive in misrepresenting his position. If White took this to court, all he'd probably need do is show this ongoing back and forth in the Talk page and the judge would probably declare RW guilty of knowingly publishing libelous and false content.

Signed - 101.190.27.37 02:58, 9 May 2015‎